Sorry, not sorry: A close scrutiny on crimes offending religious feelings

Crimes offending religious feelings, a law that was intended to fortify theocratic Spanish rule, has simply been carried over to present-day democracy-- embodied in Section 4, article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. This study provides for a comparative analysis of the applicability of Article 133, a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Dumayas, Mitzi I., Yu, Cindee Michelle S.
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Animo Repository 2014
Subjects:
Online Access:https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_bachelors/5590
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: De La Salle University
Language: English
id oai:animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph:etd_bachelors-6192
record_format eprints
spelling oai:animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph:etd_bachelors-61922021-05-07T08:41:10Z Sorry, not sorry: A close scrutiny on crimes offending religious feelings Dumayas, Mitzi I. Yu, Cindee Michelle S. Crimes offending religious feelings, a law that was intended to fortify theocratic Spanish rule, has simply been carried over to present-day democracy-- embodied in Section 4, article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. This study provides for a comparative analysis of the applicability of Article 133, and old theocratic law, to contemporaneous laws in the Philippines, i.e. freedom of speech.;"The sprouts of contemporary governance-- democracy-- is manifested by the Constitution freedom of speech being one of the most vital laws of democracy. Following the great shift from theocracy to democracy, Article 133 has been found to be irrelevant in the present-day era-- an archaic provision that has confused its place to the Constitution and human-rights laws, which currently recognizes freedom of expression. Crimes offending religious feelings endangers the constitutional guarantee of free expression due to the absence of a clear and conclusive definition of what constitutes acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful, such being one of two vital elements of the provision. The Supreme Court has provided a vague standard of such offensive acts, basing solely on the feeling of the complainant. Subjectivity being its basis, the provisions becomes overly broad and impermissibly ambiguous. As such, Article 133 is unequivocally void for there exists no absolute and conclusive standards of what acts are prohibited or otherwise allowed, creating a chilling effect that can discourage a person in the expression of his ideas. 2014-01-01T08:00:00Z text https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_bachelors/5590 Bachelor's Theses English Animo Repository Freedom of speech--Philippines Blasphemy--Law and legislation--Philippines
institution De La Salle University
building De La Salle University Library
continent Asia
country Philippines
Philippines
content_provider De La Salle University Library
collection DLSU Institutional Repository
language English
topic Freedom of speech--Philippines
Blasphemy--Law and legislation--Philippines
spellingShingle Freedom of speech--Philippines
Blasphemy--Law and legislation--Philippines
Dumayas, Mitzi I.
Yu, Cindee Michelle S.
Sorry, not sorry: A close scrutiny on crimes offending religious feelings
description Crimes offending religious feelings, a law that was intended to fortify theocratic Spanish rule, has simply been carried over to present-day democracy-- embodied in Section 4, article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. This study provides for a comparative analysis of the applicability of Article 133, and old theocratic law, to contemporaneous laws in the Philippines, i.e. freedom of speech.;"The sprouts of contemporary governance-- democracy-- is manifested by the Constitution freedom of speech being one of the most vital laws of democracy. Following the great shift from theocracy to democracy, Article 133 has been found to be irrelevant in the present-day era-- an archaic provision that has confused its place to the Constitution and human-rights laws, which currently recognizes freedom of expression. Crimes offending religious feelings endangers the constitutional guarantee of free expression due to the absence of a clear and conclusive definition of what constitutes acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful, such being one of two vital elements of the provision. The Supreme Court has provided a vague standard of such offensive acts, basing solely on the feeling of the complainant. Subjectivity being its basis, the provisions becomes overly broad and impermissibly ambiguous. As such, Article 133 is unequivocally void for there exists no absolute and conclusive standards of what acts are prohibited or otherwise allowed, creating a chilling effect that can discourage a person in the expression of his ideas.
format text
author Dumayas, Mitzi I.
Yu, Cindee Michelle S.
author_facet Dumayas, Mitzi I.
Yu, Cindee Michelle S.
author_sort Dumayas, Mitzi I.
title Sorry, not sorry: A close scrutiny on crimes offending religious feelings
title_short Sorry, not sorry: A close scrutiny on crimes offending religious feelings
title_full Sorry, not sorry: A close scrutiny on crimes offending religious feelings
title_fullStr Sorry, not sorry: A close scrutiny on crimes offending religious feelings
title_full_unstemmed Sorry, not sorry: A close scrutiny on crimes offending religious feelings
title_sort sorry, not sorry: a close scrutiny on crimes offending religious feelings
publisher Animo Repository
publishDate 2014
url https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_bachelors/5590
_version_ 1712576432163520512